If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Other way around - Wayland would be rendering and compositing the desktop, but this would only let you use client drawn apps. So there would be an X server running rootless so you could use legacy apps. The X applications would then be pulled from the X server and would be composted with the normal ones.

It would be a lot like how Mac OS X handles X applications.

So would it be possible for the Wayland+X.org configuration to work on two different graphic cards, one integrated and another one discrete?

Mac OSX can't do that. I just hope Wayland will continue to be client-server. Else, I won't bother, as VNC just doesn't cut it.

Anyone has more info about this?

Cheers,
Benedikt

You can run using indirect glx connection. It has fairly good performance even in wireless g network so if you have better than that connection any opengl application that doesn't take advantage of too new features should work well. You can test it by running some opengl application in your server using LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 enviroment varaible.

Other way around - Wayland would be rendering and compositing the desktop, but this would only let you use client drawn apps. So there would be an X server running rootless so you could use legacy apps. The X applications would then be pulled from the X server and would be composted with the normal ones.

It would be a lot like how Mac OS X handles X applications.

I am willing to start a wikipedia page to detail the differences and similarities between the graphical sides -- windowing and gui in general -- of Mac OSX versus X.org. Does anybody know if such thing exists anywhere?

It's funny how KDE and Qt fans say nonsense like this and then complain whenever anyone mentions the horribly mismanaged KDE 4.0 and 4.1 releases...

It's funny to see some people choosing crap rather then better toolkits, because there's G in name. 4.1 was actually great and 4.0 was testing release. It's also funny, because some people have filters on their eyes and they see only BS from one side. What's nonsense here? Gtk is old compared to QT4, great FAN.

It's funny to see some people choosing crap rather then better toolkits, because there's G in name. 4.1 was actually great and 4.0 was testing release. It's also funny, because some people have filters on their eyes and they see only BS from one side. What's nonsense here? Gtk is old compared to QT4, great FAN.

True, except their making that testing release and calling it "4.0" was false advertising. As such, it's fair to criticize it for not living up to what a 4.0 release is expected to be (it's expected to build on 3.x...).

They should have come up with a new name so that it could be version 1.0. KDE: Awesomeness Edition, version 1.0. Ok I admit my name is lousy, but at least it would have been more honest.

Shush your mouths about it. It's history. KDE released something that most people didn't find useful. Live with it. There is nothing that they could of done to avoid it. It is simply the fundamental reality of what happens with software and rewrites.

It's as obvious as it is blameless.

It's a trade off. A bit of pain for a couple years until the software gets up to speed, then hopefully they'll have something modern and better then what you can get from other places.